Sam Ruby wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> I agree that the current publication decision is entering the realm of
>> the absurd. Process is ad-hoc, options are not clearly communicated,
>> and the rules seem to change from day to day.
>
> Let me recap. I originally proposed that we simply publish Ian's draft.
> That attracted 5 objections. One is out of scope. Two recommended
> actions that are not viable at this time. One was resolved to the
> originator's satisfaction. Each day, I showed slow but steady progress
> towards this goal.
>
> That leaves one objection that has been partially satisfied.
>
> Despite the objection being contrary to my recommendation, I do not
> intend to simply overrule the objection by fiat. As they say in some
> Westerns, "first we have a fair trail, then we hang him"(*)
>
> I believe that it is important in the course of having a fair trail to
> let the plaintiff make their case in their own words. You and I and
> others have suggested things, but in the final analysis it is up to John
> to make his case. If a poll is required, then it is up to John to
> propose what the poll will be.
I do believe that objections _do_ need to be resolved, but I do not
believe that objections should postpone publishing a WD: a WD explicitly
notes that it may not enjoy consensus from the WG.
As I see it, we definitely should work towards resolving all objections
by LC; I don't think we should allow objections to postpone publishing a
WD, as if we do that, I doubt we will manage to meet the heartbeat
requirement.
--
Geoffrey Sneddon â€” Opera Software
<http://gsnedders.com/>
<http://www.opera.com/>